THUGS beat up the police

[Softus]

I could not care less.

In the literal meaning of the phrase, this is a lie, since the number of times you mention that the list exists, without anyone even asking, illustrates that you could care about it an awful lot less.

+++++++++++++++
Will you boys stop trying to needle each other please.

The thread title is "THUGS beat up the police"

Mod Rupert
+++++++++++++++

 

[Slogger]

It's funny, isn't it, how those who object most loudly to my views, and call me the most names, are often the people who don't want to be told that they should have an open mind about immigration, crime and punishment, guilt and responsibility, don't want to consider an opposite view...

i find your views on immigration /crime and punishment way way too pc and lefty to be real ? surely your on a wind up mission with you all is rosy attitude to those aspects of life that touch others very BADLY i say badly as unless you have been on the recieving end of the above attrocities yes ATTROCITIES then you havent really the right to say immigration is ok and criminals should not recieve CAPITAL punishment

lets ask those people who have actually suffered at the hands of the above problems what they would want , i dont see it happening do you

are you a social worker ? they seem to share the same rosy glasses

the people who done this to the police should have been publicly flogged on the first match day ( birching )

 

[ban-all-sheds]

i find your views on immigration /crime and punishment way way too pc and lefty to be real ?

You're very confused, aren't you? For example, what does my position on economy and state intervention have to do with whether or not I think it's right to kill people?

Why do you think that recognising the facts about the contributions made by immigrants is "way too politically correct"? Are you against the truth? Would you prefer policy to be formulated on the basis of lies?

All you're doing here, Slogger, is showing that your thinking is muddled and your views unconnected and unstructured.

surely your on a wind up mission with you all is rosy attitude to those aspects of life that touch others very BADLY i say badly as unless you have been on the recieving end of the above attrocities yes ATTROCITIES then you havent really the right to say immigration is ok and criminals should not recieve CAPITAL punishment

As I'm sure I've said before, I am not one of those people who is so inadequate that he needs to come here and post wind-ups.

And I think you'll find that in our current society I do have the right to state my position on immigration, capital punishment etc. If you would like to live in a society where people don't have these rights then I suggest you emigrate to one where it's already like that, rather than try to change this one.

lets ask those people who have actually suffered at the hands of the above problems what they would want , i dont see it happening do you

I've not followed the story closely, so I don't know if they have been asked or not, but it might be unfair to ask them, as being police officers they might be constrained in what public statements they are allowed to make concerning laws and punishments.

are you a social worker ? they seem to share the same rosy glasses

No I'm not.

the people who done this to the police should have been publicly flogged on the first match day ( birching )

Ah - "it is wrong to hit people, and to show you how wrong it is we are going to hit you". A bizarre idea.

 

[baldy01]

If you meant there was a fat chance of said person defeating you in a debate(in your opinion) it could be seen as a very arrogant comment.

It could, I guess, by anybody not paying attention.

Obviously I wasn't paying attention either cos thats how this reads BAS. You seem to be saying that no-one has any chance of ever winning an argument with you.

That may not be the way you intend to come across, but you do. Thats probably why you are at the top of the list, of many people here, of people who are not worth arguing with because they are incapable of absorbing ideas not originating from within their own skull. I'm not having a go here, I'm trying to explain to you why you manage to upset so many people.

Probably futile, but hey I like to give people the benefit of the doubt

 

[Softus]

i find your views on immigration /crime and punishment way way too pc and lefty to be real ?

You're very confused, aren't you?

I wouldn't say confused, simply high on emotion.

Why do you think that recognising the facts about the contributions made by immigrants is "way too politically correct"?

The answer is utterly obvious - it's because your thinking, and the way you express it, is consistent with that of someone who is obsessed with being politically correct for the sake of it. The problem that you fail to recognise is that you make yourself indistinguishable from those people whose opinion it has become fashionable to disparage, and ultimately, ignore.

Are you against the truth? Would you prefer policy to be formulated on the basis of lies?

The act of postulating the opposite of what you think that someone would prefer is surely one of stupidity - the very thing that you despise so vehemently. The phrase "breathtaking hypocrisy" springs to mind.

As I'm sure I've said before, I am not one of those people who is so inadequate that he needs to come here and post wind-ups.

Maybe not, but inadequacy is not the only motivation for wind-ups, and to suggest so is to present a deliberate smoke-screen in order to disingenuously evade the nub of the question.

If you would like to live in a society where people don't have these rights then I suggest you emigrate to one where it's already like that, rather than try to change this one.

The point that you're missing is that Slogger has equal rights to you, and anyone could, as easily, justify a proposal that you should emigrate.

lets ask those people who have actually suffered at the hands of the above problems what they would want , i dont see it happening do you

I've not followed the story closely

Oh boy, does this sound familiar. So what you're presenting is a meta-argument based on insufficient knowledge of the facts in question.

the people who done this to the police should have been publicly flogged on the first match day ( birching )

Ah - "it is wrong to hit people, and to show you how wrong it is we are going to hit you". A bizarre idea.

It's not that bizarre for believers in certain parts of the Christian Bible.

 

[baldy01]

Ah - "it is wrong to hit people, and to show you how wrong it is we are going to hit you". A bizarre idea.

Why is it a bizarre idea?

 

[OBESE m8]

Why is it a bizarre idea?[/quote]

 

[bambam100bam]

Why is it a bizarre idea?[/quote]

 

[baldy01]

It's not that bizarre for believers in certain parts of the Christian Bible

Just a suggestion, never ever use a religious text to try and prove an argument. The whole argument will just get horrendously messy. Lets stick to rational debate eh?

 

[Softus]

Just a suggestion, never ever use a religious text to try and prove an argument.

I'm not trying to prove anything, merely observing that there are hundreds of thousands of people for whom the concept of "an eye for eye..." is part of their upbringing, and that they choose to live by that credence, whether or not for religious reasons.

By that token of sheer popularity it is only a bizarre idea if one pretends that they've never heard a reference to the relevant passage of the Bible. I call it pretence, you may call it a lie. Who's to say...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah - "it is wrong to hit people, and to show you how wrong it is we are going to hit you". A bizarre idea.

Why is it a bizarre idea?

From the point of view of a moral society, it seems bizarre that the state should legitimise the use of violence as a strategic response rather than a tactical one.

 

[Softus]

Why is it a bizarre idea?

From the point of view of a moral society, it seems bizarre that the state should legitimise the use of violence as a strategic response rather than a tactical one.

That isn't at all a bizarre idea. It may be an uncivilised one, but as an idea it's as the old as the hills and really rather a popular one.

If you fail to acknowledge that many people like it as an idea, and to understand why, then you have no realistic chance of educating those people, and to continue trying to when there's no realistic chance is, truly, the most bizarre thing of all.

 

[JohnD]

It's not that bizarre for believers in certain parts of the Christian Bible.

Pre-Christian, I think you'll find.

(Ref: Sermon on the Mount
Matt. 5.38 ff)

 

[baldy01]

From the point of view of a moral society, it seems bizarre that the state should legitimise the use of violence as a strategic response rather than a tactical one.

Its nice to see that you've adjusted your stance on violence to realise that tactical violence sometimes is necessary. Thats encouraging, I didn't think you were capable of that.

I believe you are now into the realms of the more generic question -

When is it moral for a group of people, albeit through a representative, to do that which it is immoral for a member of that group to do alone.

To my mind self-defence is a perfectly legitimate use of force for an individual and a society, as is defending someone who is unable to defend themselves.

So the question is to what extent does societies strategicaly using violence against such an individual serve that end.

If a public flogging prevents said thugs from beating anyone up again then why is it not legitimate for society to use it to defend future victims.

Of course the concept of self defence also requires that you only employ the amount of force necessary, none if at all possible, so it is also beholden on us to not flog people if there is another EQUALLY EFFECTIVE method of preventing future transgressions.

 

[JohnD]

...I believe you are now into the realms of the more generic question -

When is it moral for a group of people, albeit through a representative, to do that which it is immoral for a member of that group to do alone....

We're on shaky ground here, but possibly never.

Example 1:

Baldy01 is known to fiddle his tax returns.

HM Customs & Revenue kidnap his baby daughter and threaten to boil her alive if he ever does it again. They were authorised by Act of Parliament to do this when necessary.

The result is that he stops fiddling his tax returns for several years.

Then he falls on hard times and does some work for undeclared cash. He is found out and his daughter is boiled alive.

The result is that other tradesmen with families hear about this, and stop fiddling their tax returns.

Was the state entitled to do this? Or was it a fundamentally immoral and wicked act?

Would the question of morality be different if the punishment was less or more severe, or if the crime was less or more serious?

Example 2:

The nation of Atlantis suffers several terrorist attacks. The people carrying out the attacks are members of the Celtic race and adherents of the druid religion. Atlantis forces invade several Celtic nations (though not the one where most of the terrorists originated) and arrest many Druids, some of then inside Celtic countries, and some of them in friendly non-Celtic countries. These Druids are imprisoned for indefinite periods without trial, and tortured on the grounds that some of them may have useful information. Some of them are killed by Atlantis forces when in custody.

The result is a general revulsion and hatred of Atlantis by Druids throughout the world, and by the Celtic nations, which increases the number of attacks.

The government of Atlantis says that it normally supports the rule of law and prohibits the use of torture and extra-judicial killing, but Druids are different, and Celtic nationals are different, so normal rules do not apply.

The government of Atlantis claims that these Druids have no rights to trial or legal protection either in their own country, or under the laws of Atlantis.

Is the government of Atlantis entitled to imprison, torture and kill people without trial, and to invade various Celtic countries?

Would the moral question be different if the Druids had committed Shoplifting crimes, or if the Celtic nations had encouraged illegal software piracy instead of terrorist acts?

Would the actions be morally acceptable if, instead of increasing hatred, revulsion and attacks, they had caused attacks to reduce?